Talk:M1 carbine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Firearms; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page where you can find a list of open tasks. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale
United States Portal
This article is within the scope of the United States WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the M1 carbine article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Random comment

I'd like to add that Greece also used this weapon, and she continues to use it (I'm not sure which variant exactly) to this day with the air force ground forces.

[edit] Missing images

Where did the pics go?

HEY! This is a direct copy from http://encyclopedia.lockergnome.com/s/b/M1_Carbine ?

Including the categories and linked articles? Nope, that's a (uncredited) copy of us. Oberiko 01:39, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Looks like a credited copy to me. There's a GFDL link and a source link at the bottom, and the source links back to here. Lord Bodak 13:29, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Must have missed that then. Oberiko 18:21, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Compare to Garand?

What is this weapon's weight and size (its reputed advantage) compared to the M1 Garand? --Blainster 20:16, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

comparing the two is silly; there is very little common to both rifles except a similar appearance. two entirely different purposes, calibers, audiences, etc. Avriette 16:43, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • This is a legitimate question.

The reason for the development of the "light rifle" was to provide a weapon superior to the handgun for troops whose mission would not allow them to carry a full size rifle. So a comparison is valid. Garand 43.6 inches, 24 inch barrel, weight 9.5 to 10 pounds, 8 round en-bloc clip; Carbine 35.5 inches overall, 18 inch barrel, weight 5.2 to 6 pounds, 15 shot detachable box magazine; The variance in weight is due to the difference in the density of wood. The .30-06 round of the Garand has nearly three times the energy of the .30 carbine. The only other short shoulder arm in general issue at the time was the Thompson Submachinegun which weighed 12 pounds, heavier than the Garand.Naaman Brown (talk) 03:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hezi SM-1 Bullpup PDW

I know the Hezi SM-1 is a bullpup version of the M1 Carbine, How long has it been used in the IDF?User:EX STAB 00:29 April 1st, 2007 (UTC)

It has never been in use with the IDF. The fact that its made in Israel does not mean that it's in use with the IDF. -- Thatguy96 04:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Cartridge

  • The M3 and M1 Thompson fired bullets at a significantly lower speed than most other SMGs; the Sten and MP40 had muzzle velocities of around 365m/s, the Owen and Beretta M1938A had MVs of around 420m/s, and at the high end of the scale the PPSh-41 had an MV of about 490m/s.
  • I don't know of any assault rifles that used slower ammunition than the M1. 5.45x39, 5.56x45, 5.8x42, 6x60, 6.5x50SR, 6.5x52, 6.5x55, 7x49, 7.62x39, 7.62x45, 7.92x33 (cartridges that saw service), 4.32x46, 4.6x36, 4.7x21, 4.85x49, 5.56x33, 5.56x52, 5.56x63, 5.6x44, 5.6x48, 6x45, 6.25x43, 6.35x48, 6.35x52, 6.45x48, 6.8x43, 6.8x46, 6.8x52, 7x43, 7x51, and 7.92x40 (cartridges that didn't) ammunition all have greater muzzle velocities than the M1's 7.62x33 ammunition, with advantages of 110m/s at the slowest (7.92x33 Kurz) to 2,460m/s at the fastest (6.8x52 Homologous).
  • I'm fairly certain blunt noses don't increase "hitting power"; a pointed bullet will create a larger permanent cavity.
  • A longer barrel only increases range up to a certain point.
  • Specific info on the ballistic tests mentioned would be appreciated, as everything I've read on the subject supports the idea of heavy winter clothing, at least under certain conditions, functioning as body armor against the M1.

Ergbert 01:46, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I tried to find more info on blunt vs pointed bullets, and it seems a blunt bullet may produce more damage at the surface but less after penetration. I've found almost nothing on the subject, though. Ergbert 19:28, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Also, I don't know the ballistic coefficient for the carbine's ammo, but running the ammo through a few ballistic calculators with an estimate, it looks like at 300 yards it has about as much energy as a Nambu pistol does at the muzzle...Less than most pistols, AFAIK. Ergbert 19:50, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Reasons for Reversions

  • Making a link that says ".30 caliber" but goes to ".30 Carbine" is misleading; .30 Carbine is a .30 caliber cartridge. I put the link to .30 Carbine farther down where there won't be confusion.
  • Changed stuff for grammar/capitalization/hyphenation/readability problems
  • I think it would be more proper to compare the carbine to other firearms using muzzle energy than velocity.
  • The "later, shorter barreled firearms" bit feels out of place. If it's going to be put back, I think it should be expanded so we know what it's referring to.
  • If no one can provide proof that the heavy clothing thing is wrong, I can't find a first-hand account that it's correct (I can find references to it in reliable sources, but not first-hand information.), and we'll all be unhappy leaving in stuff we think is wrong, then I think that bit should just be removed.
  • If no evidence for blunt bullets being more damaging can be provided, I think that reference should be removed, as the stuff I've read on terminal ballistics indicates the opposite.
  • I think the bit on whether or not the carbine is an assault rifle is a useful addition to that section.

Ergbert 03:30, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

*Making a link that says ".30 caliber" but goes to ".30 Carbine" is misleading; .30 Carbine is a .30 caliber cartridge. I put the link to .30 Carbine farther down where there won't be confusion.

I can't say I agree its misleading since it was talking about the round, but I changed it.

*I think it would be more proper to compare the carbine to other firearms using muzzle energy than velocity.

Muzzle energy is talked about as well. Muzzle velocity is very important however, as slower heavier bullets and faster lighter bullet of the same muzzle energy have different ballistics.

*The "later, shorter barreled firearms" bit feels out of place. If it's going to be put back, I think it should be expanded so we know what it's referring to.

Its pretty self explanatory- any number of post-war .30 carbine pistols, for example.

*If no one can provide proof that the heavy clothing thing is wrong, I can't find a first-hand account that it's correct (I can find references to it in reliable sources, but not first-hand information.), and we'll all be unhappy leaving in stuff we think is wrong, then I think that bit should just be removed.

As you acknowledge, at its maximum listed range it still has the initial power of a small pistol. Unfortunetly the site that showed some tests for this is down currently. Needless to say the effect was nil, but there is nothing I cand find in the interim. Ve3 06:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I tried again to make an edit that's acceptable to both of us. I think the stuff that we both think we're right about ('stopping power' & how easy the bullet is to stop) should probably just not be mentioned until we get conclusive proof. If the external link comes online again, then IMO it should probably go back into the article, but I think as we have no idea for how long it'll be down, it should be left out now.

FWIW, I also did some work on .30 Carbine. Ergbert 20:05, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Conjecture I agree we can cull out, but the numerical comparisons are objective. I would not read to much into what I think of its 'power', it was indeed a 'weak' stopper. However, its all relative, and this quality tends to become overblown;it was still nasty to get hit with. As with most rounds, shot placement is key. If you have read pointed heads increase wounding in their terminal impact, this, I would like to see. The only way I know of pointed heads being more effective, is not in terminal ballistics, but overall, because they dont loose as much energy to drag, or if they fragment.
As for the link, it should stay. Books cannot be visted from the page either, but can be mentioned in articles. If your interested I can send you the page or images from the test (which I had saved when it was up). If you have any good info, especially solid data that has had a impact on your views, I am just as interested in that. Ve3 22:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't object to numerical comparisons, but to inaccurate statements (such as "which is about double most sub-machine guns") and grammatical/spelling errors (which are a large part of why I'm trying to modify the text I wrote to be acceptable to you instead of modifying the text you wrote to be acceptable to me).

As for the terminal ballistics of pointed bullets, here is a quick quote from Wikipedia's bullet article (that I haven't contributed to, in case that matters): All pointed non-expanding bullets tumble after impact with flesh as their spin is unsufficient to stabilize their flight in a material denser than air, and if the jacket is relatively thin this results in G-forces sufficient to cause the bullet to break into two or more pieces and vastly increases the wounding effectiveness of the bullet's impact. The effect is very similar to that of a hollow-point bullet.

Subsonic bullets with rounded fronts often ricochet off their target if it is at an angle. To overcome this problem wadcutters or semi wadcutters were developed with flattened noses, or "hollow point", with a concave nose. As the flat nose interferes with feeding a self-loading gun, full wadcutters are usually only shot from revolvers or single-shot guns. A variation is to have a ring of small teeth, covered by a soft plastic nose so that the bullet will feed correctly in self-loading guns. The teeth engage a sloping surface.

I still think the link shouldn't be there, but I really don't want to continue ripping apart each other's edits, so for now I'll just change the text there...Ergbert 03:19, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok thanks for explaining. I found 1 spelling error and I got rid of the iffy 'double' (that had been meant to reference .45 smgs). As for the w. bullet article, it has very serious issues, as do those quotes. I highly recommend [1] or even the wikipeida page on terminal ballistics over that.
Just to start: Any kind of bullet can tumble, not just pointed ones. Pointed bullets do not always tumble either. Breaking apart is mainly a function of the material, the impact velocity, and the bullet. When bullets do break apart there can be a higher effectiveness like hollow points, though whats happening is different than how hollow points work.
Pointed bullets tend to have less drag, especially at supersonic velocities, but this is a separate issue from the velocity they are fired at. At sea level the speed of sound is often around 330-350 m/s. This means most of the time everything from the higher power 9 mm SMG's, to nearly every service rifle for past century and beyond, fires its bullets at supersonic speeds.
Bullets can indeed ricochet, but this is neither unique to subsonic bullets, or rounded heads, and is rarely if ever a issue when hitting anything remotely soft. The main point of wad-cutters and flat heads is not to 'dig in', but so the bullet expands and creates a larger hole. The point of plastic beads is generally to make sure it opens up, and is not filled in with a material that does not open it (such as clothes). The point of teeth is usually to get the bullet as it expands to break into 'petals' in a uniform way, to further increase the hole size. Many special rounds can indeed have trouble feeding in auto-loaders, that is a valid point. Ve3 05:00, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
The Wikipedia bullet article isn't where I first read pointed bullets tend to tumble, just a convenient source to give you. I don't know where I first read it, but two sources that I know say pointed bullets tend to tumble (tend to, not are the only ones to) are [2] and this book.
Also, this has mostly been about my objections to text in the article. What are your objections to the Design text in this version of the artcle? Ergbert 23:59, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
There is a difference between the design of specific pointed bullets that tumble, and if that feature causes it to tumble. It is very true that there many pointed bullet designs that are intended to tumble, however, many jacketed round-nose bullets also tumble. Features that impact this, such as center of mass, stability, jacket, composition, impact velocity, etc. are very important. The specific shape of the head has a impact, but it does not mean it alone causes a round to tumble. There is a big difference between the effect of changing a single feature (say, a pointed 9mm) and comparing that to actual rounds designed with this feature, because those round also have many other traits. It is just not that simple a connection, and it is different to talk about pointed rounds, versus the impact of that feature on a given round.
In anycase, I will agree that it is not good to simplify effects in general, as it is too open to interpretation;that should be taken out. As for what things you have said I disagree with, it is not much actually. Aside from the things already discussed, it is more a matter of the things you are removing and some of the wordings. I have not made straight reverts, but changed things you or I have taken issue with, the idea to eventually have a hybrid version that is acceptable. Ve3 18:57, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

A bullet that is more round tends to improve stopping power. The energy of the round is imparted upon the target rather than allowing the bullet to carry through. When in close quarters, the force of the bullet is better used to stop an attacker rather than poke a hole in him.

[edit] The M3

The article says it was used extensively on Okinawa, but also states it was made for use with an early infrared device. 1945 sounds a bit early for infrared to me; anybody know more on the subject?

Doesn't look like Wikipedia has a separate article about the first US military IR devices - the Sniperscope and Snooperscope. Here is an external article on them: "These infrared weapons were developed in 1943 by the Army, precisely to defeat the infiltration tactics of the Japanese." Great technology for the time; IIRC they were considered too heavy to mount on a full-size rifle. Boris B 06:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The M3 is essentially an M2 adapted to take an infrared sighting system. Since the M3 was never fully standardized, there are several variations in how the sights were adapted to the guns. Larry Ruth is a good source on Carbine trivia. The Snooperscope is essentially a hand-held version of the Sniperscope. The system required an infrared projector and a scope to detect and amplify the infrared image reflected back. Edmund Scientific Co, Barrington NJ, had a few surplus sniperscope systems for sale in the 1960s (one use was night time observation of wildlife). Once one's military opposition has an infrared detector scope, the projectors become a liability and the "active" infrared scopes are now obsolete for military use. Naaman Brown (talk) 21:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] M2 under variants

I believe the M2, selective-fire model had a slightly different stock; the so-called "fishbelly" stock. Perhaps it should be added. 68.116.112.125 16:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Potbelly and, no, the hundreds of variations in stock and part style do not need to be mentioned. It wasn't unique to the M2, either.--Asams10 17:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. An article I recently read referred to it as "fishbelly" (though I've found "potbelly" more commonly referenced) and indicated that it was developed for the M2 due to it's full-auto capability. I believe it was G&A's Surplus Arms magazine. If it was not unique to the M2, then indeed it shouldn't be listed. If it was originally developed for the M2, perhaps a note should be added. 68.116.112.125 19:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
According to Bruce Canfield, the pot-belled stock was developed for the M2. However, the stock was also used when M1 were refurbished. D.E. Watters 20:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I believe it may be beneficial to add a single line reference to this development, but if the others do not agree, it's certainly not that important. Thanks again. 68.116.112.125 21:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it would be informative to add a single line in this regard, since it explains why the pot-bellied stock could now be encountered on M1s, as well as explaining when and why a variant in the original design came about.--Ana Nim 15:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Not sure I made this point well enough, but this is a collector's curiosity, not anything substantial or even really notable. There are also half a dozen variations in the M1 Garand stock that, while of interest to the collector, are relatively minor and have no bearing on anything real or imagined. If it were a change to the design of the gun or if it changed nomenclature ( as in M1903 vs. M1903A1) then it would be significant. We can list about a dozen stock but it would serve no purpose here. This is not a blog, forum, or collector's corner, it is an encyclopedia.--Asams10 15:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
However, if you've got any references to the contrary, I'd be interested to read through them.--Asams10 15:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
FWIW, here is the reference to "fish-belly" stock [3]. 66.191.19.217 04:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
FWIW, your reference mis-spells the manufacturer "Irwin Pedersen". You'd expect the rest of the information in there to be crap as well.--Asams10 14:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
No one said Guns & Ammo magazine always gets it right, though funny the author didn't catch that one. BTW, you misspelled misspell, so I guess we all make typos now and again. Best wishes. 66.191.19.217 15:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC) :^)
I cann get aways with mizspellin stuf cuz I downt git payd four et. He also made a SERIOUS error by calling it a "Fish-Belly" stock (which is actually a term used to describe another style not related to the M1 Caribine). Bad reference whatever way you look at it. Including the Pot-Belly stock requires that you include other stock variations and that you get the reason for the change correct. The Pot-belly stock, IIRC, was introduced to reduce the time needed on the shaping machine, NOT, as you say, for reinforcement. It takes less time to shape it with the pot-belly than it does with the tapered contour. Can't provide a reference, but that's what I read somewhere and that's also more logical given the M2 parts were not located where the change in stock contour was... again IIRC. Does anybody have "War Baby" by Collector Grade Publications? Might be able to shed some light on the situation.--Asams10 11:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm famililar with War Baby, L Ruth (1992), but I don't have a copy handy. I'll leave that and the reference below (Riesch) to you and other contributors to research further. 66.191.19.217 13:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I have found additional information. The M2 "potbelly" stock was a deliberate redesign of the stock and not a simple manufacturing variation. As it was one of the modifications that was part of the M2 development and therefore the weapons systems evolution, I believe a single sentence would be in order. I leave the information for whomever and the consensus to decide to add it or not. Goodbye & God bless.66.191.19.217 16:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Source:

"Type V: The Type V stock was the late production M2 Carbine stock. It was shaped so that the bottom portion between the magazine well and the barrel band swelled outward, giving the stock a "potbelly" appearance. The additional wood provided the strength lost when internal areas were milled away to accept the select fire M2 parts. The stock manufactured after World War II was standardized as the Type V and used to repair both M1 and M2 Carbines."

U.S. M1 Carbines, Wartime Production, 5th Revised and Expanded Edition, page 104, by Craig Riesch, ISBN: 1882391438, North Cape Publications, Inc., 2007


[edit] Performance

I reverted to the prior version this addition: "The Carbine fits all the requirments [sic] of an Assault Rifle, except being fully automatic. It also has an effective range similiar [sic] to other early weapons of that type, at 300m. Despite German Assualt [sic] rifles being fully automatic from the beginning, and having a more powerful round, the carbine was easily supplied to the troops. Stg-44's were extremely rare, usually only issued to specialst [sic] units(Panzer Grenadiers), and at the most two per squad. Conversly [sic], the Carbine was extremely common for all types of American troops, and could easily be obtained by the average soldier."

As discussed within the article, the .30 Carbine cartridge is more akin to a pistol cartridge in performance than to an intermediate rifle cartridge characteristic of assault rifle cartridges. The claimed 300m effective range seems overstated. The comparison on commonality of issue does not seem to fit in a section on performance.--Ana Nim 16:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's stick with the dictionary definition of "compare". (It does not mean "equate".) It is natural to wonder how the performance of the M1/M2 carbines compare with that of modern assault rifles (or the M1 Garand), and there is nothing wrong with providing the relevant quantitative information. Compared with the current Russian assault rifle family, the M1/M2 carbines have a bigger bullet diameter (7.62mm vs. 5.45mm), greater muzzle momentum (217 to 159), lower muzzle velocity (1975 vs. 2950 fps), and approximately equal muzzle energy (955 vs. 1045 foot-pounds). Compare the latter figure to the 465 foot-pounds which is a very generous figure for the NATO standard pistol round (9mm Parabellum). In light of these numbers, it is logical for readers to wonder why the carbines don't count as assault rifles, and the reasons for excluding them needn't be left to the imagination or buried under flat assertions. Does the M2 not count as an assault rifle (a) because it wasn't called one (which would also exclude the MP 43), (b) because it is derived from a semi-automatic (the M1), (c) because there is an arbitrary minimum ME of 1000 foot-pounds (which no one has stated outright), or (d) because MV is more important than all other ballistic numbers? There may be other reasons I haven't thought of, but of the above only (d) seems reasonable, and if that's the case, the performance gap between the carbine and any military pistol round is going to be even greater (the contemporary U.S. pistol cartridge never hit 1000 fps). Boris B (talk) 03:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

To clarify: Above, I wasn't taking issue with Ana Nim's use of the word "comparison", but usages further above on the page. Boris B (talk) 03:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

  • The M1 carbine was originally developed to replace the pistol; the StG44 and AK47 were developed to replace the rifle. By that standard, the M1 Carbine is not an assault rifle. In actual war zones, the M1 carbine was used as a substitute for the rifle and the submachinegun, making it a de facto assault rifle.Naaman Brown (talk) 03:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inclusion/Non-inclusion of various commercial makers

I submit that Universal and National Ordnance guns should be included in the list of commercial versions. While someone may be of the opinion that National Ordnance M-1 carbines are of inferior quality, that does not make them any less an M-1 carbine. The receivers for these guns were made by National Ordnance (and stamped M-1) with the remainder of the gun assembled by the company from surplus GI parts. This practice still fits within the ATF guidelines of manufacturing a firearm. The National Ordnance guns also have complete interchangeability of parts with all the other military & commercial makers except for Universal. Here on Wikipedia, a neutral bias and point of view is the goal. Stating that Natl Ord shouldn't be included on a list of makers because someone's opinion is that they don't function very well seems to demonstrate a bias and non-neutral point of view. Universal carbines are also a completely separate maker. The guns are stamped M-1 and are very close in appearance to the rest of the M-1 carbines. A few of the Universal's parts are interchangeable with the other makers. I submit that a Universal M-1 carbine is merely a modified version of the same gun and not a separate firearm. While I may agree that Universal carbines are not necessarily of the highest quality, I don't think it's a neutral stance to bar its inclusion on the list simply because of that opinion. I understand that there are some purists who do not consider ANY of the commercial versions to be true M-1 carbines. That is why they are differentiated by being listed as commercial (basically post-war) versions. Sf46 (talk) 17:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally attacking me by using the term "Someone" does not make your argument right. Further, your arguments are not very strong so I'm not going to bother sparing with you... really... you make the assumption that a Universal made "carbine" is an M1 Carbine... get real. --Asams10 (talk) 17:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I use the term "someone" because I'm not trying to call anyone out or make any personal attacks. I still assert that instead of continually reverting the article, that the issued should have been discussed here. Now it's a matter for the admins to decide.Sf46 (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh, no, it's not a matter of revert and throwing a tantrum to get your way. You have to back up your position. You edited the article on the 21st of December to add Commercial manufacturers, however inverstment casting a receiver and stamping a serial number on a pile of metal is not encyclopedic. You must defend your position HERE on the talk page, not by ramrodding your edits through. --Asams10 (talk) 18:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I asked you several times (unsucessfully) to bring this disagreement to discussion (as evidenced in the edit comment logs)[4] [5] [6]. I also think I stated my case about the article needing to be non-biased per Wikipedia policy. Simply deleting information about a maker because one doesn't like the quality of that maker's product doesn't seem non-biased to me. Sf46 (talk) 18:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Protected

I have now protected it in whatever form I found it. Please discuss the problems here and come up with a consensus. I suggest dropping a note at WP:GUNS and WP:MILHIST for input. Woody (talk) 18:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments and observations

I was asked to comment on this by Sf46. I am not familiar enough with the M-1 Carbine and its history to be comfortable giving an opinion below. I will, however, make some observations:

  1. Please correct me if I’m mistaken, but as far as I understand them, BATFE rules would classify both Universal and National as manufacturers
  2. Contrary to his claim, Asams10’s edit summaries ([7] and [8]) do appear to be opinions
  3. Sources need to be supplied to justify either editor’s position

Both editors need to step away and read WP:3RR, as they have both violated it during this disagreement. I hope to see this resolved in a calm manner after the page protection is lifted. —Travistalk 20:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Travis. I'm going to unprotect on the Universal/national included version, and if the edit war continues I'm going to start blocking. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 01:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus Vote

Here's the vote so far on whether National Ordnance and Universal M-1 Carbines should stay included in the article under commercial versions:

For Including:

  • sf46 Sf46 (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I believe that they should be included in the article as they pertain to it. Perhaps under a sub heading like : "Commercial Versions" , maybe? Dreamafter ⇔ 19:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • If under a commerical heading If put into a section in article called comerical heading, not infoboxBonesBrigade 19:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • They are manufacturers of modern Carbines and I believe they should have a role in the article. There are only so many WWII M1 Carbines available. Just because they are not the best doesn't mean they don't deserve the mention. If that's the case, let's get rid of Hi-Point firearms or any less than reliable gun that have not been adopted by Military or LE. --Chinese3126 (talk) 20:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Furthermore, I would like to add that many gun users use Wikipedia for information. If they would like to purchase an M1 Carbine, which is pretty popular, they know they can find commercial versions in addition to military versions. This article should include everything possible. --Chinese3126 (talk) 01:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm for including this information in the article, under a heading like "modern commercial manufacture" or some such thing. I'm not in favor of the placement in the infobox, because even with only the undisputed items, that field is already too long. A better idea is to limit the length of that item (with more information in an obvious place in the article) than to stuff everything into one infobox field. Further, placement in the article would make this information more amenable to discussion of the quality issue. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree - all the commercial variations should be included in a subsection. Certainly several of these variations were of questionable quality (double-spring Universals, anyone?) and the fact that these were of post-World War 2 production and *not* made for U.S. military contracts should be made clear. Alternatively, a separate article could be the answer, similar to the M16 rifle and AR-15, with links in each article referring to the other. GMan552 (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I would be okay with the inclusion, provided it was stated that they are by rights, not true M1 carbines, but commercial look-a-likes and copies, and that they are not included in the infobox.--LWF (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strongly agree with Gavia's statement. They do, in my mind, have a place in the article, but only under the appropriate heading. They also should be kept out of the infobox, as it is not in any way necessary and would add to an already lengthy display. PeteShanosky 21:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I think they should be included but listed as commerical copies per LWF. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm inclined to leave them out, but if they need to be included it needs to happen under a "commercial" or "clone" section. FWIW the Universal Enforcer was a dogturd with a pistolgrip.--Mike Searson (talk) 23:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Include. Other articles concerning military firearms (such as Jungle Carbine and M1911 pistol make mention of non-military use versions of a particular military design. I see nothing wrong with continuing that standard. Besides, owners or researchers looking for general info on the M1 carbine may assume that any M1 automatically was military-issue, and including information on other production would help others avoid mistaking non-military weapons for military ones. TeamZissou (talk) 23:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd have to be for it too. Their mention should stay in the civilian section. Goldfishsoldier (talk) 00:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm for including the Universal and National Ordinance versions as commercial versions, but I don't think they should be in the info box. I'm with sf46 arguments above. Nburden (T) 00:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I see no problem with mentioing the Universal/NA models as Commercial Variants, provided it's stressed that these are basically modern-day copies and were never Military issue. As has been pointed out, this works very well in other articles, and there's no reason not to apply it here. --Commander Zulu (talk) 07:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes. Of course. Otherwise the AR-15 series is going to be a mess, among other things. Does it match the design? It's a M-1 Carbine. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


Against Including:

  • Asams10
  • Article yes, infobox no, because these were not made for or used by the U.S. military. Any standards could have been followed. I can cook something up in my garage and call it an M1, but it wouldn't be. A copy is not the same as the official version. These listings already clash with the year of manufacture. Perhaps a small note called copies can be added and wikilinked to an article section. — Deon Steyn (talk) 19:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

No opinion:

  • User:John, but it's worth remembering that edit-warring over stuff like this is liable to get you blocked without further warning per WP:3RR. Using a misleading edit summary like "rvv" while edit-warring over a minor point of style is unsupportable. Don't do it. Instead continue to elicit wider opinion towards a consensus. If necessary consider using WP:DR if there is a clash of personalities which is holding up progress on the article. --John (talk) 20:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Just can't let it go, can you? --Asams10 (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I was asked to take a look. Don't misuse edit summaries, don't revert war. Seriously. --John (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Asams10, John is only repeating policy, and in a completely neutral manner I might add. I will echo those sentiments, I protected the page instead of blocking you both for 3RR. Edit summaries should be indicative of the changes to the page. That being said, I think you have been admonished enough for that, and it should be forgiven. Remember that discussion and cooperation is what Wikipedia is built on. Woody (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Also no opinion vis-à-vis inclusion, but please see my comments above. —Travistalk 20:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Done

Unprotected on the included version. Asams10, you have a bad history of edit warring your own opinion in when you're the only one or the extreme minority who hold it, as you did on the Walther P22 and Glock 19 articles back post-virginia tech shooting. You've been warned before, and it's pretty clear that the consensus is well against you here. Further edit warring will result in a block. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 01:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh, yeah. My bad. You're also quite biased as you have a history with me. --Asams10 (talk) 02:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Hold on. Not sure which section to post this in now, but I don't think all the voters in the poll understood what they were voting for. I would also have voted for inclusion in the article, but I thought the fight was over the infobox??? Let me tweak it a little and see what we can come up with while it's still a fresh issue. — Deon Steyn (talk) 06:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I created a new section and just linked to it from the infobox. This also leaves more room for additional information (and references) while at the same time not given undue weight to the commercial copies in the infobox. — Deon Steyn (talk) 06:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Looks good, and seems to fit the consensus. --John (talk) 06:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Deon Steyn's edit looks good to me as well. Sf46 (talk) 14:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I've updated the "Commercial" section, but the "Hunting and civilian use" and "Current production" sections need to be cleaned up to move the references to the copies in those sections to "Commercial." GMan552 (talk) 16:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Other calibers?

If the Spitfire cartridge commercial variant is mentioned, shouldn't the article also include the .256 Win. Magnum, as in the Universal "Ferret"?--Ana Nim (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

No. It should mention the spitfire, but only as a footnote in the text. Just because some gunsmith chambered the gun in a caliber, that doesn't make it an offered caliber. I can chamber the rifle in anything I want, that does not make it encyclopedic. And, as has been stated before, the Universals weren't real carbines by the time they made them in .256. --Asams10 (talk) 23:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
It was a production caliber, IIRC, not a "gunsmith" chambering, so your comment is off base. And you've already been soundly voted down on your opinion that Universals were not M1 Carbines. They may have been poor quality, but they were still carbines, and they were factory chambered in .256. Does anybody else have any useful input into this issue?--Ana Nim (talk) 16:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Voted down on what opinion? Follow the edit summaries and look at who put my name in the 'against' column... I was and always have been against includsion of Universal as a major producer of M1 Carbines. They were far down the list of 45-odd makers that slapped parts onto rewelded or cast receivers. In fact, they were so unsuccessfull in obtaining parts, they quickly moved to redesigning the gun to use more cheap, shoddy cast parts with little to no testing involved... anything it took to make the guns cheaper. Were you there? I was. The M1 Carbine was converted to 9mm Federal Magnum, 9mm Luger, 9x21, 22 magnum, and numerous other calibers by gunsmiths over the years. In fact, to varrying degrees of success and greater numbers than the .256. IIRC, less than 100 guns were produced of any variant. Other than the Spitfire, none was successful including the .256. Of course, this is all original research... I was there. Were you? Prove that any of these were encyclopedic. Please, provide references and numbers. My memory isn't perfect... I could be off by a few percentage points. I say it all the time, just because I'm abrasive doesn't mean I'm not right. Please separate your feelings and emotions from the reality. --Asams10 (talk) 18:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
You are the one who needs to separate feelings from reality. You cannot seem to grasp that we are not talking about gunsmith conversions. We're not talking about gunsmith conversions. Got that now? Can it be any more plain? And it seems that despite all your self-described "abrasive" bluster, you cannot dispute that Universal produced a factory variant of the M1 Carbine in .256. Since you can't, concede the point and just get over it.--Ana Nim (talk) 21:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I do know of and have a few printed sources about a gunsmith who converted several hundred milsurp m1 carbines to 45 WinMag. He built a real slick looking stock to mount them in and did demos at the SHOT Show and SOF conventions before he passed away. 45 WinMag uses the same rim diameter and was how AMT was able to offer the Automag 3 (in 30 carbine) and Automag 4 in 45 WinMag by utilizing the same extractors, etc. The question is, how do we define "production" vs wildcat..several hundred units or several thousand? FFL manufacturer vs hobbyist tinkering in his garage?--Mike Searson (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Fair question. I am not talking about an aftermarket conversion, like the LeMag. I am talking about a factory variant. As best I can recall, Universal itself manufactured the .256 version, marketed as the Ferret. This would distinguish it clearly from aftermarket conversions.--Ana Nim (talk) 17:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, the main thrust of this article appears to be the military version. If the Ferret does not merit its own article, I would suggest a mention underneath commercial manufacturers. e.g: "In addition, Universal manufactured a variant chambered in .256 and sold as 'the Ferret'". etc if number of units made can be mentioned, years produced, etc...incorporate that with appropriate sources. I'm only vaguely familiar with this model...M1's don't do it for me.--Mike Searson (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Universal notes

Asams, instead of putting the information you want about Universal in a reference statement that drops down to a note, why not put the info in the article next to the Universal listing and then reference that info to whatever website you found it on? Sf46 (talk) 02:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

1) It breaks up the continuity of the article. 2) It's important, but not enough to interrupt people's enjoyment of the article. If they want to know, the info is there. 3) I don't think it should be left out for fear that somebody will buy a Universal New Carbine thinking it's genuine. --Asams10 (talk) 02:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Malcolm X photo

The Malcolm X photo used in this article seems to be a continued target by one or more users who keep deleting its fair use rationale and then putting up deletion tags. As much as I hate to do it, I have to agree with Asams on this issue. Those editors need to leave the rationales alone and submit the issue for deletion review if they think the rationals are BS. Sf46 (talk) 02:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL, I was thinking the same thing. Don't know enough about Fair Use, but it's either Racist, as one editor suggested, or something we're not doing right. It seems to fall square within the bounds of fair use though, even for the Rap artist's usage. Just as long as SwatJester comes in and disagrees, I'll feel just fine. --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 03:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I fully agree with Sf46. And I'll add my opinion that the photo is certainly of historic importance and the commentary on it, in the context of this article, makes its use appropriate. --Ana Nim (talk) 17:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Likewise, I agree with Sf46 and Ana Nim, the picture is of historic importance and great to ilustrate the article. Vicius (talk) 00:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)